-
fussy type ae to fcp
Hello Everyone,
I’ve created a type animation in ae (no secondary program like illustrator being used). Rendered the type animation out at 1920x1080HDtv 29.97, animation. Nothing is scaling up..or has a scale change.
When the editor puts the type animation into fcp, he says it appears fuzzy…anyone have any thoughts as to why this may be happening?
Thank you!
H
-
7 Replies
-
does the file look good when you look at it in quicktime…? you probably won’t get realtime play back, but if you just look at a single frame, does it look ok?
if so, then ask the editor to look a the file in their quicktime player so they can see if they see the fuzziness in qt. if they don’t, then you’ll need to know more about what they are doing with the footage…
fcp is almost certainly transcoding the footage to a lighter bandwidth codec when they are importing it. it would help to know what the codec is, and you may be able to provide them with that same codec.
you might also ask them to send you the converted file from their capture scratch folder. then you could see what they see and would also see exactly what codec and footage specs they are using… this assumes that you have the same quicktime components that fcp is using — apple does have several qt components that are only installed with fcp. the editor can provide the codecs to you, but they would be mac only.
Kevin Camp
Senior Designer
KCPQ, KMYQ & KRCW -
Hey Kevin,
Thanks so much for the reply.
The type looks great in the qt I rendered. The client sent me what the type looks like in fcp and it’s soft…and also the edges of a lower third are a little pixelated.
The client is exporting in fcp at 1920x1080i, square pixels, 25 fps, XDCAM HD4221080p2
I’m on a mac, so that wouldn’t be a problem. Do you think the codec is the problem?
Thank you !
H
-
it could be the codec, though xdcam 422 should hold up fairly well.
the fact that some of the edges look pixelated would make me think that the footage was rendered progressive and they have imported it as interlaced, or the other way around.
also, you didn’t by chance send them sd versions for approval, that may have been used by the editor by mistake? i’ve seen that happen with a few of my proofs…
Kevin Camp
Senior Designer
KCPQ, KMYQ & KRCW -
Hi Kevin,
Thanks for the info. I double check on the progressive v.s. interlaced….
what does “sd” mean?
-
standard def… though, i was meaning a lower rez version since, typically you might render a half rez version of a comp for approval purposes, rather than an actual sd version.
also, sometimes people will want a version of all graphics on tape (often sd beta variety) as a failsafe in case there is a problem with the files and they just have to get it done…
anyway, if you did deliver low rez versions for whatever reason, you might want them to verify that they are using the correct hd versions, since adding lower rez graphics to an hd timeline would result in softer, pixalated graphics.
Kevin Camp
Senior Designer
KCPQ, KMYQ & KRCW -
oh oh oh…got it. Nope, full res, animation lossless render……
Thanks though…hopefully the editor will work with me to get this resolved.
-
Thanks Dave!
So when I render out my final animations, set upper fields first on the field render, right? I’ll give that a shot and see if it helps!
Thank you, I really appreciate all the help. Really want to make this look perfect.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up